| Keith Hart on Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:55:28 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> What is the meaning of Trump's victory? |
There are clearly two tendencies on nettime at this time and many
strung out between them. With some overlaps they are the two threads on
Trump, started by Alex and Brian respectively. That is why I posted on
Brian's. There is more I can relate to there, even though I don't
expect to agree totally with my old friend Brian or him with me.
Sameness-in-difference moves history, Hegel thought, and even poor mad
Max Weber used similar arguments to moderate the polarised
Methodenstreit (Battle over Methods) about economics of the late 19th
century between Berlin and Vienna. We would not be interested in the
Greeks if they were the same as us, he wrote, and we couldn't
understand them, if they were completely different.
I liked the exchange between Frederic and Brian a lot and I hope it
continues. It made me feel more at home here than sometimes. It
reminded me of my reaction to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, the
movie about the boys who shot up kids in their school. Moore grew up in
Flint Michigan, a city that is plagued by the worst case of racism in
the state and maybe for some distance beyond that. It goes way back and
deep. It was not created by neoliberalism, but probably exacerbated by
it. I don't know about that.� It needs a historical perspective,
anyway.
Moore asks, why is it that Canadians have as many guns as Americans
(this may have changed lately), but kill people a whole lot less often?
He takes a historical perspective, but it is literally a cartoon
version. He says that Americans kill so many as a direct result of the
racist origins of the country, rooted in slavery and fear of negro
revolts.
Two books published by CLR James in 1938: The Black Jacobins about the
Haitian revolution and A History of Negro (now Pan-African) Revolt,
which takes the story forward via the US in the early 19th century and
the civil war to the imminent prospects for Africans to overthrow
colonial empire. He told Trotsky he had got racism in the US all wrong
and hated the duplicitous attitude of the Stalinsts (who were shooting
at him in 30s Paris when he was researching the Haitian revolution). He
wrote a text in the early 1950s when he was being ejected from the US
after 15 years there. Anna Grimshaw and I edited it for publication as
American Civilization in 1993. We thought it bore comparison with
Tocqueville whom James draws on fully, as well as Melville and Whitman,
but mainly US popular arts in the mid-20th century. It has been allowed
to go out of print, but you can still pick up a copy on Amazon or ABE
for about $15.
I learned more from James than anyone else, both from his many books
and from the years we spent together (with Anna) before he died in
1989, between Tiananmen Square and the Berlin Wall. I will never forget
watching the first with him on TV as a young man tried to obstruct the
tanks. The occasion of the student protest was a meeting attended by
Gorbachev. James held that were only two world revolutions left -- the
second Russian revolution and the second American revolution. He once
wrote a wonderful article comparing the American civil rights movement
in 1956 with Nkrumah's Ghana revolution and the Hungarian revolution at
the same time. He exaggerated the significance of Poland's Soldariity,
but he was right about Africa and no-one, Europeans and Africans alike,
believed in such a possibility when he wrote on the eve of WW2. Anyway,
we were watching TV in May 1989 along with half the world; and CLR said
to me "The Chinese communists will put down the students down easily,
but the Russians won't hold onto Eastern Europe after this. He died two
weeks later at the age of 88, so he didn't see the Berlin Wall come
down six months later.
Sorry for the digression, but the current topic is capitalism, racism
and revolution in the US and the world. Back to Goodbye to Columbine. I
almost wept when I saw that cartoon blaming US violence on racism. The
root cause of our ills is private property, its indifference or
hostility to the public interest. Nowhere has this been more developed
than the US and never so far (perhaps) as in the Gilded Age and now in
the neoliberal era that is collapsing around our ears. Americans have
much less social protection (aka welfare state) than Canada or W.
Europe, even though for some decades now their governments have rushed
to follow them. The BRICS governments (China, India, Brazil, Russia and
South Africa), all in their own distinctive way and mainly just for the
sake of their own survival, have been trying to expand social
protection for the millions recently brought into city markets without
it. This echoes the era of development states, les trente glorieuses
after 1945 in the industrial West, the post-colonial states and the
Soviet bloc. The world had the biggest economic boom in world history
then.
It is because most American families have had so little to save them
from the ravages of capital and markets based on private property that
they turned to violence (domestic and public), religion and racism on a
scale for which there ie no parallel elsewhere, except maybe in South
Africa. The last three decades or more have made this much worse in the
Anglophone countries, led by the US. In 2011, with the Arab Spring and
Occupy, I thought that the world was on the move in a good direction.
Remember the demonstrations in so many cities around the world when
Occupy first happened? Many reacted with enthusiasm to the notion that
the status quo was being challenged in its heartland, the centre of
global empire.
We have since learned, as after WW1 and WW2, that the race is on to
determine what kind of states will come to rule the world, both in
response to the ruin (actual and prospective) of societies and the
world economy and to repair the damage brought about by reckless and
lawless globalization. The contenders were before welfare state
democracy, fascism and communism.They are still contenders, but the
world has now been brought closer together by neoliberal markets,
telecommunications and cheap mobility. Closer, but more divided and
unequal at the same time -- an explosive recipe. Federalism and the
nation-state are still the main options as they were 200 yers ago. Most
of the big countries have federal origins, but have become more like
nation-states since WW2. This is especially true of the US and may
become more so under Trump. The EU, which I once saw as a beacon for
the federal option, has become an undemocratic bullies club. I would
not put it past the Europeans to launch WW3, as they did the previous
two.
What was new about neoliberalism, after all? Politicians have always
needed money and moneymen political cover. Their alliance is at least
300 or 400 years old and is probably universal. But they usually kept
it under wraps, if they could. The Bank of England, Banque de France
and Federal reserve are all based on private capital, but present
themselves as an agency made by and serving the public interest. The
difference is that neoliberals make a public virtue of this situation.
God knows what variant Trump will come up with.
In the meantime, we worry about what Trump is going to do -- and we
have every reason to. But protesting in the streets won't do, at least
by themselves. We need ways of imagining a better future, based on
historical perspective and contemporary realism -- Hegel's (and
Rousseau's) movement from the actual to the possible.The actual has
deep roots in th epast as well as being global and not just local or
national. My Facebook page if framed by a shot by a shot of Tahrir
Square at night -- all that stirring agitation and animation, with
cell-phone cameras flashing all around. It looks like something by
Delacroix or Gericault. We all know what happened next in Egypt and its
region.
James would say the most people just want to keep what they have got
most of the time -- and that is a good thing, he said, society would be
impossible if it was run by a few professional agitators like him who
spend all their time plotting to tu,rn everything upside down. But as
Marx said, the revolution (and total war) comes like a thief in the
night when no-one is expecting it. People now discover that they have
lost most of what they had or are about to unless they do something
about it and many of them join in with gusto. He would make up an
illustrative example (he was also a novelist): you see this gut at th
ebustop every day, buttoned up, never speaks to anyone. When the
revolution comes, he could be organizing a street committee (soviet).
In the revolution itself or war, the radical left may assume a position
of leadership. since they have been dreaming about revolution all their
adult lives. Or not, of course. It depends on who they are. Read
Lenin's and Trosky's life history, for example.
Keith
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 08:27 AM, Frederic Neyrat wrote:
Here is my thought: as I don't think that racism is just a
natural passion/affect/drive, I try to understand where it comes
from. And, as I try to understand what happened in the USA, I
thought that the neoliberal/capitalist/economic destruction of
the economic, cultural, symbolic conditions of a certain number
of white people, who however voted for Obama during the two last
elections (at least some of them), fueled, generated or regenerated
racism and a reactionary moment: to restore (or/and produce) a
patriarchal/racist/misogynistic situation.
<...>
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: